Review 1

The project review held in December in Lisbon was highly critical of the project and made a number of recommendations for improvement. This page includes a public preçis of those recommendations.

R1 Development of Best Practices

Share-PSI 2.0 has to focus on Best Practices (BPs) developed by PSI experts to support the implementation of the PSI directive. A good starting point for these Best Practices come from the Samos Recommendations:

• the idea of 'open data' comes as a natural consequence of the real goal that is to share data.
  • Design for sharing improves efficiencies
  • Improved data quality and service delivery
  • Data sharing within the public sector provides for greater savings and better services
• bringing policy makers and citizens closer together
• enable data-based efficiencies and innovation:
  • identification of potential data providers and their datasets, both public and private sector
  • requirements development, standards selection and portal implementation
  • application development
  • dissemination through competitions, meetings, talks and student motivation
• Focus on the demand side – feedback loop is essential at the early stages of open data common metadata structure
• Transparency Anti-corruption and Transport are very viral domains for open data app development
• the quality of the data handling processes is as important as the data quality itself
• Top-down and bottom-up approaches of opening data both have advantages

and the Flanders state of the art handbook Open Data Handleiding 2.0, highlighted as a “localised guide” at the review meeting. These BPs must amongst others answer the 3 questions posed in the project’s flyer:

1. What data is covered by the Directive?; How should they be published?.
2. What can be done to maximise the return on investment, whether in terms of internal efficiencies or external commercial development.
3. What are the existing best standards to use, what new standards need to be developed?

The Best Practices definition process could be also part of the workshop design.

The partners should:

• Come up with an agreed outlining of what a BP is and what would be its structure. The Best Practices need to be structured, compact, readable, reusable and

comparable.

• Collect, classify and organize the BPs within the consortium (e.g. Flanders state of the art handbook cited by Noël Van Herreweghe).
• Explain for each Best Practice how it relates to:
  1. the project objectives as defined in section B1.1 of the DoW (including the process for identifying Best Practices), and
  2. the project indicators as defined in Table 0: Indicators, of the DoW (such as “use of agreed standards across borders”).
• Point out and especially emphasise, in relation to objective 2, the relation of the BPs to the revised PSI Directive (2013/37/EU).
• Demonstrate the impact of workshops

Response

Chris Harding and Noël Van Herreweghe will lead a discussion in the Timisoara project meeting on Monday 16th on addressing this. A short presentation at the end of the opening plenary will explain how each session in the workshop should lead to one or more best practices that are related to the PSI Directive.

R2: The Private Sector

The consortium should reach out to the private sector, strengthen the relationship with business and market areas willing to use or build services upon PSI open data. In order to reach the potential re-users and to get more external input from third parties, Share-PSI 2.0 has to be able to attract the participation of more stakeholders from different private clusters (such as SMEs, data markets, etc.) as potential PSI re-users.

R3: Relationship with DWBP WG

The consortium has to clarify the relationship and communication mechanisms or interaction between the Share-PSI 2.0 Thematic Network and the W3C, particularly the " W3C Data on the Web Best Practice Working Group. Channels of retrospective communication should be defined, as well as a clear demarcation of tasks, deliverables and responsibilities of Share-PSI 2.0.

R4 - 5

Further recommendations concerned:

• the identity of the project, in particular the lack of use of the @Sharepsi twitter account and the share-psi.eu domain name (which is not owned by any Share-PSI partner);
• aspects of the deliverables.

The main effect of the latter in terms of the project is that greater effort should go into documenting our stories.

Further comments

1. The objectives are still relevant. But the consortium needs to remember the value of the network for exchanging experiences in transposing the revised PSI Directive into national legislation by July 2015.
2. The objectives are also still achievable within the time and the resources available to the project, but the consortium needs to be more proactive and effective in collecting and disseminating Best Practices (BPs), and carefully planning the achievement of MS6 (Public availability of at least 15 localised

implementation guides of the Best Practices document) due in April 2016.